Judy, in order of importance: IMO you do not have the moral authority
to comment beneficially on the upsets bt me and Robin; you do not
have the emotional good health to comment beneficially on them; you
do not have the emotional intelligence to comment usefully on them;
you do not have the professional training to comment usefully or
beneficially on them. IMO this is a matter bt me and Robin so lastly,
I don't think it is useful or appropriate for you to comment on these
matters bt him and me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* authfriend <authfri...@yahoo.com>
*To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
*Sent:* Friday, July 12, 2013 9:17 AM
*Subject:* [FairfieldLife] Re: Four for Share
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com>, Share Long
<sharelong60@...> wrote:
>
> Judy, my own discernments re the upset bt me and Robin have
> been validated by objective people like Xeno and Susa
Not only are they obviously not objective, they weren't
following what went on. Recently I had to give Susan a
primer as to the facts. Xeno has acknowledged he didn't
follow things closely.
> Plus when Robin emailed me a few weeks ago, on June 17,
> he said nothing specific about our upset. So I don't
> think it is appropriate for you to comment on these
> matters.
You don't seem to get it. This has to do with your behavior
on FFL, in public, which gives me every right to comment.
Whatever he may have said or not said to you in private
weeks ago, your refusal to apologize hadn't even been a
topic here for some time. If he wants to come on FFL and
say something about it, he's welcome to do so.
Let me repeat what I said below, because you appear to
have missed it:
"There is no basis for you to demand behind-the-scenes
negotiations. With behavior as appalling as this, the
target does not have to give you any 'indications' that
an apology is in order, or that he would accept one if
you made it. Difficult though it may be for you to face,
the reality is that you don't get to put conditions on
making that apology. You owe it unconditionally."
> Nor do I think you have the moral authority or mental good
> health to do so.
I have to assume that is said without intentional irony.
> As to the former, I've seen how you distort what I say.
No, you haven't. I don't distort what you've said. I can
back up every word of what I wrote below.
> As to the latter, IMO I think you are out of balance with
> regards to Robin.
Says the person who called him a "psychological rapist."
Barry, you're going to lose your Master of Inadvertent
Irony title if you aren't careful.
> ________________________________
> From: authfriend <authfriend@...>
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 11:06 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Four for Share
>
>
>
> Â
> 349555
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com>, Share Long <sharelong60@>
wrote:
> (snip)
> > OTOH, thank you so much for your insights about
> > apologizing.
>
> Xeno has no insights about apologizing. He makes
> it up as he goes along because he knows it impresses
> people like you.
>
> > Robin didn't accept my apologies
> > before and I've had no indication from him that
> > he'd do so now. And actually I have apologized
> > many times so I agree with you that some posters
> > are using that issue, I'd say in an unhealthy
> > way. IMO they need to focus on their own lives
> > and let Robin and I, if we want, figure out who
> > needs to apologize to whom and for what.
>
> This is grossly offensive total bullshit, Share. And
> somewhere deep in your stunted heart and atrophied
> conscience, you know it.
>
> > There was plenty of hurtful words on both sides.
>
> There did not have to be *any* hurtful words on
> either side had you, Share, simply accepted Robin's
> initial explanation of what he had said to you that
> you had so absurdly misunderstood.
>
> Instead, you mulishly resisted that explanation--as
> well as his gracious (and entirely undeserved) *apology*
> to you for having written something quite simple and
> straightforward that you somehow managed to get
> thoroughly garbled in your own mind. It was so
> ridiculously, hideously garbled that Robin didn't even
> understand what you were objecting to at first.
>
> Robin was blameless in all this. What you call "hurtful
> words" on his side were no more than his trying to get
> you to deal with reality. This terrified you so badly
> that you made your inexcusable and utterly unjustified
> accusation that he had "psychologically raped" you--
> referring back to your *original* misunderstanding. I've
> documented how mild your initial complaint was and how
> you went on to inflate and embroider it, contradicting
> yourself time and again and refusing to address the
> contradictions when they were pointed out to you.
>
> There is no way anybody but you needs to apologize. And
> your apology needs to be made in the same place as you
> made your false accusation, right here on FFL, in public
> where everyone can see it. That has not happened yet. Not
> only have you not apologized "many times," you have
> *never* apologized for that.
>
> There is no basis for you to demand behind-the-scenes
> negotiations. With behavior as appalling as this, the
> target does not have to give you any "indications" that
> an apology is in order, or that he would accept one if
> you made it. Difficult though it may be for you to face,
> the reality is that you don't get to put conditions on
> making that apology. You owe it unconditionally.
>
> Your refusal to apologize for what you know was a false
> accusation is the elephant in the room of your claims
> to be all about seeking healing and making amends for
> your bad behavior. You will never be successful at either
> until you confront the reality of that false accusation
> and apologize for it.
>
> 349462
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com>, Share Long <sharelong60@>
wrote:
> >
> > turq has gone after me before and I've survived.
>
> But you would much rather he didn't do it again.
> That's understandable. *Pandering* to him in order
> to get on his good side is contemptible.
>
> > One of the qualities of Libra ascendent which I
> > am, is that they like to balance discussions and
> > situations. So when many are opposing someone
> > here, I tend to take the opposite view.
>
> Said with a completely straight face, not even
> a whiff of irony. Unbelievable.
>
> > OTOH I don't like it when turq says what are IMO
> > really mean things to or about someone. But I
> > don't like it when anyone, including myself, does
> > that. It seems that we're all on a learning curve
> > about that.
>
> It seems you need to speak for yourself, Share.
>
> 349579
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com>, Share Long <sharelong60@>
wrote:
> >
> > You funny, Ann! turq and I are what I call
> > frenemies. We know what we like and what we
> > don't like about each other and we've expressed
> > that here. I like that kind of balance in a
> > frenemyship (-:
>
> Do you seriously think Barry has paid one nanosecond's
> attention to what you've said you don't like about him?
> (Or what you've said you do like, for that matter?)
>
> Seriously?
>
> How do you manage to tie your shoes in the morning?
>
> P.S.: "frenemy": one who pretends to be a friend but is
> actually an enemy
>
> "The enemy of my enemy is my frenemy."
>
> 349552
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:FairfieldLife%40yahoogroups.com>, Share Long <sharelong60@>
wrote:
> >
> > Addled Judy about Share's response: (And you're
> > responding to Xeno in any case, not Nabby.
> >
> > Share clarifies her own response for Judy's sake:
> > I'm replying to both. The smiley face was to Xeno
> > for his humor. And hopefully Addled Judy, you can
> > see that the PS was to Nabby. That it was a joke,
> > I realize, may be harder for you to discern.
>
> Tell the truth, Share.
>
